Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

have the jealous/envious killed the spirit of the child? it seems odd, yet to say they have been killed by the spirit of the child makes even less sense, both in the story and grammatically.
please help!

have the jealous/envious killed the spirit of the child? it seems odd, yet to say they have been killed by the spirit of the child makes even less sense, both in the story and grammatically.please help!

Old timers used "spirit" as we say "life' or just "breath". And they did not sharply distinguished between "breath", "life", "spirit", and "ghost".

I'm not sure how you are translating a verb as an adjective... but this is actually a perfect active indicative of [face=SPIonic]qnhskw[/face] and so "the ones seeking the life of the child have died". It means practically the same thing but I don't want anyone to get mixed up about the form. :)

klewlis wrote:I'm not sure how you are translating a verb as an adjective... but this is actually a perfect active indicative of [face=SPIonic]qnhskw[/face] and so "the ones seeking the life of the child have died". It means practically the same thing but I don't want anyone to get mixed up about the form.

Hi,

I'm pretty sure mingshey has it right. In its perfect forms this verb means "be dead". It's a 'stative' perspective of death.

klewlis wrote:I'm not sure how you are translating a verb as an adjective... but this is actually a perfect active indicative of [face=SPIonic]qnhskw[/face] and so "the ones seeking the life of the child have died". It means practically the same thing but I don't want anyone to get mixed up about the form. :)

Hi,

I'm pretty sure mingshey has it right. In its perfect forms this verb means "be dead". It's a 'stative' perspective of death.

kelwlis:
I had to put "be" before "dead". I was not very careful, indeed.
Alternatively, you could put it as "have died", which is not very english as I know of.

Kasper:
you might had a version in which the "[face=SPIonic]oi([/face]" was missing. It could make you hesitate to interprete the participle as "those who were ...ing". But then again, without "[face=SPIonic]oi([/face]" it could be translated:
They are dead (while) searching for the life of the child.

mingshey wrote:kelwlis: I had to put "be" before "dead". I was not very careful, indeed. Alternatively, you could put it as "have died", which is not very english as I know of.

Actually there's nothing wrong with "have died" in english--"they are dead" could mean anything--that they died 50 years ago or 5 minutes ago. But "they have died" implies more of a "since x, they have died". In our particular case that could be "since you left the land, the people searching for the child have died...". Does that make sense?

klewlis wrote: In our particular case that could be "since you left the land, the people searching for the child have died...". Does that make sense?

Yes, but using of the perfect [face=SPIonic]teqnh/kasin[/face] implies "NOW you can safely get back home". The perfect indicates that the past action expressed has yet an effect on the present situation.

The aorist [face=SPIonic]a)pe/qanon[/face] would have only told the story : "they died". So, for example, Joseph could have thought that it was a well deserved punishment, without implying anything in relationship with his present situation.

klewlis wrote:Actually there's nothing wrong with "have died" in english--"they are dead" could mean anything--that they died 50 years ago or 5 minutes ago. But "they have died" implies more of a "since x, they have died". In our particular case that could be "since you left the land, the people searching for the child have died...". Does that make sense?

Differences between "is dead" and "has died"... well.....

I suppose a determined hair-splitter might take a rock as an example, and point out that "this rock is dead," but "this rock hasn't died." But this scenario only applies to objects which are intrinsically not alive. And there aren't a whole lot of scenarios where we might feel compelled to make the bold assertion that "hey, this rock hasn't died."

There are several famous dieties who reportedly died and came back to life, which means "they have died" but "they are not dead." But these are exceptional cases.

In ordinary cases (not rocks, not dieties) I'm not sure the distinction between the two is useful. Death is both permanent and the unambiguous. Either you are dead or you are not dead (there's not much room for in-between) and once you are dead, that's it, you aren't coming back.

If a person is dead, then it's clear that he has died.

I can think of some contexts where I would prefer "has died" over "is dead," but the shade of difference is trifling. It seems to me that the choice of using one or the other depends on the overall construction of the English sentences, and not on the underlying assertion.

We could try translating the other way around. Imagine St. Mathew is translating an episode of Star Trek into koine Greek. When the evil aliens aim their phasers at a hapless red-shirted security guard, and then Dr. McCoy informs the captain, "He's dead, Jim," how would St. Matthew render that in ancient Greek? [face=SPIonic] qa/natoj e)sti/ [/face] or [face=SPIonic] te/qnhke [/face] ? Or maybe [face=SPIonic] e)/qane [/face] ?

If St. Matthew is a purist, he might insist on using an adjective, since the English original has an adjective. But then again, would a speaker of ancient Greek really say it that way?

I'm not sure how to translate this properly into Greek, but don't bother telling me that Dr. McCoy should have said, "He has died, Jim." I'm not buying that.

The English language does not have as clearly defined aspects as Greek does.
The difference between -is dead- and -has died- seems trivial in English (though there is a difference), but in an attempt to translate the different aspects of Greek into English, this is a valid distinction.
The perfect tense in Greek indicates that there is a significance for the present.
The aorist just states a fact without elaborating on its significance.
The context may give more information, but the verb itself does not.

Well, my opinion is, [face=SPIonic]te/qnhke[/face] can be properly translated as either "is dead" or "has died." I think that both of them are good renderings of the Greek perfect tense. I can't tell if you folks completely agree, but either way I guess it's not worth quibbling over.

This topic reminds me of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch:

It’s passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone up to meet it’s maker! This is a late parrot! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s brought down the curtain, and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!!

Democritus wrote:Well, my opinion is, [face=SPIonic]te/qnhke[/face] can be properly translated as either "is dead" or "has died." I think that both of them are good renderings of the Greek perfect tense. I can't tell if you folks completely agree, but either way I guess it's not worth quibbling over.

This topic reminds me of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch:

It’s passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone up to meet it’s maker! This is a late parrot! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s brought down the curtain, and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!!